351 Conn. 511
Conn.2025Background
- Jewelyette (b. 2015) was committed to DCF early and placed with preadoptive foster parents (John N. & Diana N.), who cared for her for years while DCF at times pursued reunification with her father, John M.
- In 2022–23 a trial court denied the father’s motion to revoke commitment, finding revocation not in Jewelyette’s best interest and crediting the foster parents’ role; the foster parents had been granted intervenor status for that hearing.
- After the Appellate Court decided In re Ryan C. (holding §46b-129(p) precludes foster parent intervention), DCF moved to remove the foster parents as intervenors; the trial court granted the motion and later held a new revocation hearing (Nov 4, 2024) without the foster parents, granting revocation and transferring guardianship to the father.
- The foster parents appealed the removal order and filed a writ of error challenging the Nov 4 revocation hearing, arguing (1) In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided and (2) their statutory right under §46b-129(p) to be "heard and comment" was violated because they were excused after a short unsworn statement and barred from attending the evidentiary hearing.
- The Supreme Court (majority) held In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided and overruled it, restored the foster parents’ intervenor rights, vacated the Nov 4 revocation order, and remanded for a new revocation hearing; it also clarified the scope of the §46b-129(p) right to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Foster parents' Argument | Commissioner/John's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §46b-129(p) precludes permissive intervention under Practice Book §35a-4(c) | The 2001 amendment intended only to grant foster parents a statutory right to notice and to be heard, not to bar permissive intervention; permissive intervention remains available under Practice Book §35a-4(c). | The 2001 change ("standing" → "right to be heard") removed automatic party status and thus bars foster parent intervention; In re Ryan C. so held. | §46b-129(p) does not prohibit trial courts from granting permissive intervention; In re Ryan C. is overruled. |
| Whether §46b-129(d) (2009 amendment) or other statutory text bars nonrelative intervention | The 2009 provision concerns relatives’ early intervention for temporary custody and does not repeal general intervention rules; no express statutory ban on foster parent intervention exists. | The 2009 amendment establishes a comprehensive intervention scheme reserving intervention for relatives, closing the door to others. | §46b-129(d) does not imply a blanket bar on permissive intervention by foster parents; no conflict with Practice Book §35a-4(c). |
| Scope of the statutory "right to be heard and comment" under §46b-129(p) | The right must be meaningful: foster parents should have notice, access to records, be present for the hearing, and comment after hearing evidence (including sworn testimony in appropriate cases). | The statute does not require presence throughout hearings; trial courts have discretion case-by-case and may limit participation for confidentiality or other reasons. | The right is ambiguous but ordinarily includes the right to be present for the proceeding and to comment at the appropriate time based on evidence; it does not include party rights like calling/cross-examining witnesses or appealing. Courts may tailor participation for good cause. |
| Remedy for removal as intervenors and exclusion from the Nov 4 hearing | Removal under In re Ryan C. was erroneous and exclusion from the revocation hearing violated §46b-129(p); relief should include vacatur of the Nov 4 order and a new hearing with restored intervenor rights. | The Nov 4 hearing was proper under the law as understood after In re Ryan C.; if any error, it was harmless or within judicial discretion. | The foster parents’ removal was improper; the Nov 4 revocation order is vacated in part, writ of error granted in part, and case remanded for a new revocation hearing with their participation (subject to trial court discretion on limits). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ryan C., 220 Conn. App. 507 (App. Ct. 2023) (Appellate Court held §46b-129(p) barred foster parent intervention; overruled here)
- In re Shanaira C., 297 Conn. 737 (Conn. 2010) (recognizes permissive interventor status in dispositional phase and prior case law on intervention)
- In re Santiago G., 318 Conn. 449 (Conn. 2015) (revocation hearings are part of dispositional phase; distinguishes adjudicative vs dispositional rights)
- In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263 (Conn. 1992) (discretion to permit permissive intervention in juvenile dispositional proceedings)
- Hunte v. Blumenthal, 238 Conn. 146 (Conn. 1996) (statutory scheme limits foster parents’ rights; state can restrict foster family entitlements)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process principle: opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)